View Single Post
Old
02-24-2012, 10:06 PM
  #80
smoneil
Registered User
 
smoneil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rochester
Country: United States
Posts: 2,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuccarello Awesome View Post
I think this madness needs to stop.

Stop comparing this team, and every Rangers team in the future to the 94 cup team. Of course we don't have a Messier. There are no Messiers in the league!
Did you even read my post? Not only did I specifically argue that this team is not like the 1994 team, I used many of the same arguments you are making in here. The ONLY reason I brought that team up was to contrast the difference in post-season experience (they had it--this team doesn't).

Quote:
If you want to make comparisons, compare this team to recent Cup winners, in the post-lockout era. We're very comparable to the Bruins last year. But even as deep as they were up front and on defense, they don't win that cup without a historic miracle performance by Thomas throughout the playoffs. That's how hard it is to win the cup.
Fine by me. Use the Bruins or any post-lockout-era Cup winner as a point of comparison. Can you find me ONE team among that group that won the Cup with as many playoff neophytes as we have on this roster? Boston had a ton of players with deep-playoff runs on their resume, including almost all of their key players.

Look at the Pens. The year before they won their Cup, they made a deep run. They ended up losing, largely because they weren't prepared (they said as much themselves--they all said that you can be told about the grind, but until you've lived it, you have no idea). The season after? They knew what to expect and they won the cup. Again, I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see the team winning the Cup this year when 80 % of their defense has almost no playoff experience, and 60% of the projected top 6 (with Nash) hasn't been past the first round.

smoneil is offline